Xi
ς
vids ἀποκαλόψαι.,, 23. Καὶ
στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς κατ’ ἰδίαν εἶπε, “ Μακάριοι ot ὀφθαλμοὶ
οἱ βλέποντες ἃ βλέπετε.
24. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ὅτι πολλοὶ προφῆται
καὶ βασιλεῖς ἠθέλησαν ἰδεῖν ἃ ὑμεῖς βλέπετε, καὶ οὐκ εἶδον: καὶ ἀκοῦσαι ἃ ἀκούετε, καὶ οὐκ ἤκουσαν. 25. Καὶ ἰδού, νομικός τις ἀνέστη, ἐκπειράζων αὐτόν, kai! λέγων,
“ Διδάσκαλε, τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω;”
26. Ὁ δὲ
εἶπε πρὸς αὐτόν, “Ev τῷ νόµῳ τί γέγραπται; πῶς ἀναγινώσκεις ; 27. Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, ''᾿Αγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου, ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου, καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου, καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου, καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου" καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου
« eee ὥς σεαυτογ.
28. Εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ, -΄ Ορθῶς ἀπεκρίθης ' τοῦτο ποίει,
1 και, found in ACD al., is omitted in ΝΕΡΙ.Ξ e syr. cur. cop. 2 Instead of εξ with gen. in this and the two preceding phrases ΝΒΟΞ minusc.
have ev with dative (D has ev all through).
διανοιας. D omits this clause.
22. This part of the devotional utterance, setting forth Christ’s faith in the pur- pose of His Father and the intimate fellowship subsisting between Father and Son, appears in some texts of Lk. as a declaration made to the disciples (στραφεὶς πρὸς τ. p. a, T. R.). The gesture implies that a solemn statement is to be made.—tig ἐστιν 6 vids, 6 πατήρ: to know who the Son or the Father is = knowing the Son and the Father. The idea in Lk. is the same as in Mt., though the expression is different.—Ver. 23. στραφεὶς : a second impressive gesture, if that in ver. 22 be retained, implying that Jesus now more directly addresses the disciples. But the first στραφεὶς is altogether doubtful.— εἶπε: the word, spoken κατ’ ἰδίαν to the disciples, is substantially = Mt. xiii. 16, there referring to the happiness con- ferred on the disciples in being privi- leged to hear their Master’s parabolic teaching.—Baorrets: in place of Mt.’s δίκαιοι, which expresses an idea more intelligible to Jews than to Gentiles.
Vv. 25-37. The lawyer's question, and the parable of the good Samaritan. Many critics (even Weiss, Mk.-Evang., p. 400) think that Lk. or his source has got the theme of this section from Mt. xxii. 35 ff., Mk. xii. 28 ff., and simply enriched it with the parable of the good Samaritan, peculiar to him. Leaving this critical question on one side, it may be remarked that this story seems to be introduced on the principle of contrast, the νομικός representing the
t¢BL= have ev with dative for εξ a, τ.
σοφοὶ καὶ συνετοὶ, to whom the things of the kingdom are hidden as opposed to the νήπιοι, to whom they are revealed, i.c., the disciples whom Jesus had just congratulated on their felicity. Simi- larly in the case of the anecdote of the woman in Simon’s house, vii. 36, vide notes there. J. Weiss remarks that this story and the following one about Martha and Mary form a pair, setting forth in the sense of the Epistle of James (ii. 8, 13, 14) the two main requirements of Christianity, love to one’s neighbour and faith (vide in Meyer, ad loc.).—Ver. 25. ἀνέστη, stood up; from this ex- pression and the present tense of ava- γινώσκεις, how readest thou mow ? it has been conjectured that the scene may have been a synagogue.—tt ποιήσας: the vopixds, like the ἄρχων of xviii. 18, is professedly in quest of eternal life.—Ver. 26. th γέγραπ., πῶς ἀναγιν., how stands it written ? how readest thou ? double question with a certain empresse- ment.—Ver. 27. Lk. here puts into the mouth of the lawyer an answer com- bining as co-ordinate the religious and the ethical, which in the later incident reported in Mt. xxii. 34-40, Mk. xii. 28- 34, is ascribed to Jesus. The unity of these interests is, as Holtz. (H. C.) re- marks, the achievement and characteristic of Christianity, and one may legitimately doubt whether a man belonging to the clerical class in our Lord’s time had attained such insight. Divorce of re- ligion from morality was a cardinal vice of the righteousness of the time, and we